Could they have looked something like this?
Posted on 09/19/2007 3:45:17 PM PDT by Dysart
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The earliest-known human ancestors to migrate out of Africa possessed a surprising mix of human-like and primitive features, according to scientists who studied remains dug up at a fossil-rich site in the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
Writing on Wednesday in the journal Nature, the scientists described remains of three adults and one adolescent dating from about 1.77 million years ago, excavated at Dmanisi, about 55 miles southwest of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
The remains shed light on a little-understood but critical period in human evolution -- the transition from the more ape-like creatures known as australopithecines to the genus Homo, of which modern humans are a member.
The spines and lower limbs found at the Dmanisi site appear very much like modern humans, suggesting these individuals, which walked fully upright, were highly capable of long-distance treks, the researchers said.
But other aspects of the skeletons had more archaic characteristics. The arms were more like australopithecines than people, and the primitive skulls encased relatively small brains. Their simple stone tools also are less advanced than one might have expected, the researchers said.
They described the remains as "a surprising mosaic" of primitive and modern features.
"These are the earliest humans found outside of Africa. This is the time when our genus spread outside of Africa," David Lordkipanidze of the Georgian National Museum, who led the research, said in a telephone interview. "Their heads are primitive. Their legs are very human-like."
Scientists had previously described skulls found at the site, but in recent years found far more extensive remains of the skeletons of these creatures, giving them a more detailed understanding of these denizens of early human history.
DANGER LURKS
Also found at the site were remains of other animals that lived alongside these human ancestors, including saber-toothed cats that might have feasted on these human ancestors, primitive elephants, ostriches and giraffes.
Evidence at the site, the researchers said, suggested that these creatures were meat eaters, either hunting for their dinner or scavenging carcasses killed by other animals. They were relatively small, about 4.9 feet tall.
The paleontological site at Dmanisi was found during explorations at the ruins of a medieval castle in the 1990s.
There is a dispute over what species these individuals represent -- whether, for example, they are a very primitive member of Homo erectus or their own new species.
"Before these finds, it was considered that the humans who left Africa should have had completely human-like bodies, more human-like proportions and bigger brains," Lordkipanidze said.
Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman, who wrote a commentary accompanying the study, said the human evolutionary events unfolding at about the time these individuals lived were very important.
"We go from creatures that essentially were chimps that walked upright to creatures that begin to be like us," Lieberman said in a telephone interview.
"That transition to our genus didn't occur really rapidly, all of a sudden, in one great huge burst," he added. "Instead, that transformation wa
Thanks for your answer. Some numbers just too big for me. Others like the credit card bill are too big for my husband. Lol! Something small, like say 14, I can understand. Hey — that’s how many FReepers you are ahead of me!! :)
Thanks for the Dmanisi link.
We just don't have usable points of reference to help us with the scale. I have even more trouble with wrapping my mind around interstellar distances.
Homo sapiens sapiens, our line, came out of Africa about 90,000 BC. Homo sapiens sapiens did not, evidently, descent from homo erectus but we evolved independently in Africa.
The writer of this article is very confused.
I believe the article says this:
"There is a dispute over what species these individuals represent -- whether, for example, they are a very primitive member of Homo erectus or their own new species.
How in the heck do they know this? I mean, how long do things really last? Why not say 1 freakin’ million years? Why not 10 thousand years? I just can’t wrap my brain around this.
The 'dating' is probably not accurate but as close as modern man can calculate. These bones and their ancient existence does not in any way disagree with what the Bible literally says. What there is literally no evidence to demonstrate is that flesh man descended from the ancient bones.
I guess only God can understand it all. *sigh*
Could they have looked something like this?
Here's a useful rubric I learned in High School (Thank you Mr. Gazeau)
1 thousand seconds = a coffee break
1 million seconds = a vacation
1 billion seconds = A career
1 trillion seconds = 310 centuries
Naw, that’s an elitist Democrats picture of a stupid Republican. How to tax those strong working legs! LOL
Image: JOHN GURCHE PORTRAIT OF A PIONEER With a brain half the size of a modern one and a brow reminiscent of Homo habilis, this hominid is one of the most primitive members of our genus on record. Paleoartist John Gurche reconstructed this 1.75-million-year-old explorer from a nearly complete teenage H. erectus skull and associated mandible found in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. The background figures derive from two partial crania recovered at the site.
Image: EDWARD BELL AFRICAN EXODUS Hominids on the move: the Dmanisi finds establish that humans left Africa early--before 1.75 million years ago. Colonization of East Asia occurred by 1.1 million years ago, but hominids do not appear to have reached western Europe until far later. Perhaps carnivore competitors or inhospitable climate hindered early settling in that region.
Well did you really think he'd set it up so that we would know everything? I try not to presume to know God's intent, but I'm confident that he built the system to be well beyond the capabilities of our current intellect to fully grasp.
I’m going to have to think about that. Thanks :)
I’m starting to think that I really know nothing; I should just listen to my 6th grader. :)
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Fred. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Skulls Found in Africa and in Europe Challenge Theories of Human Origins
NY Times | August 6, 2002 | By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Posted on 08/11/2002 6:59:04 PM EDT by vannrox
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/731458/posts
Stranger In A New Land (Archaeology)
Scientific American | 11-13-2003 | Kate Wong
Posted on 11/01/2003 11:45:22 AM EST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012772/posts
Did Early Humans First Arise in Asia, Not Africa?
National Geographic News | December 27, 2005 | Nicholas Bakalar
Posted on 12/28/2005 7:01:34 PM EST by SuzyQue
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548375/posts
Evolutionary Back Story: Thoroughly Modern Spine Supported Human Ancestor
Science News | 5-7-2006 | Bruce Bower
Posted on 05/07/2006 11:48:57 AM EDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628185/posts
Rewriting Human History
Rolex Awards | 8-25-2005
Posted on 08/26/2006 8:38:14 PM EDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690599/posts
Did prehistoric man enter Europe through the Balkans?
SAWF.org | 8-22-07
Posted on 08/23/2007 7:41:47 AM EDT by Renfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1885298/posts
It is accurate for the material they are testing if it has not been confused with other material. Something there is 1.1.7 years old. Maybe the fossil and maybe not.
Please do not try to confuse the people with scientific facts.
Someone, else within ten posts is going to claim that radio metric dating is inaccurate because they can not narrow the time of death down to the exact date or time of day.
If you have the opportunity you may find the book, “The Case For a Creator,” by Lee Strobel of interest.
Thank you. I’m heading to the library today so I’ll look to see if they have it.
:)
Actually, I’m a HS Science teacher who advocates and defends “evolution” at every turn. However, this article struck me as suspect from several directions: 1. Either something was lost in the translation, or it was poorly written to begin with. Not convincing. 2. The location of the site was in European Georgia (part of the late USSR and home of J. Stalin and N. Krushchev. Folks there don’t have a strong tradition of scientific discipline. 3. The findings concerning the variance in “progress” between the skull and legs, are not what I would expect, but what one might expect from a charlatan. The only thing going for the article was its reported publication in the journal Nature. Overall, I’m skeptical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.